At an appearance at Columbia University tonight, Stephen Walt, a Harvard professor and former dean, said that he and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer were slated to speak at Google headquarters recently to discuss their bestselling book The Israel Lobby and at the last minute the event was cancelled mysteriously. "We were scheduled for Wednesday. Our publicist got an email on Friday afternoon," Walt said. The email didn’t say why the event was cancelled.
Walt says that at most of the venues the authors have spoken, the management has told them of the pressure they got to cancel the event. And often when they have appeared, it was with the understanding that someone from the other side would be presenting the opposite argument soon after, to balance their views. The two couldn’t appear "without someone following us…
"That’s not the way we’re supposed to do business in the United States," Walt said.
Google is a company. A publicly traded company. It has many employees, some who are likely to take offense at W&M's argument. Just as it is not likely to invite Richard Jensen to speak there out of concern of upsetting it's African-American employees, Google probably got a clue and decided that it isn't a good idea to have W&M come speak there and give them all that free publicity. If they had Jensen come speak, then heck yeah they should have another psychologist speak to explain the counter-arguments to a crowd of non-experts.
I don't think Mearsheimer should be our absolute guide as to what is appropriate here. You yourself Phil described him as enjoying tweeking peoples' noses and playing the role of the intellectual tough guy. He has every right to do that, but Google has every right to decide who does and doesn't present in their house. If you disagree then I'm sure you won't mind my coming to your home this evening to lecture you and your wife on the issue of childless couples and the problems they experience in later years. If you insisted that my speaking in your home on this issue this evening was contingent on another speaker presenting on the joys of not having kids, I would not have a problem with that. It's your house. You are not stopping me from publishing my book or speaking at the LA Colesium.
Besides, every time W&M get push back like this it is their publicist's wet dream.
At what point do you think you'll actually cease the hero worship and cast the critical eye on W&M's work that is a necessary part of this change process?
Did you see the "interrogation" of the two on Bloomberg tv last night by Mike Schneider?
I think it passed over the line from aggressive to hostile.
Sergei Brin, cofounder of Google, is a Russian jew. His "milieu" includes hardline Russian elements in Israel.
Great job of spotting that Jew Chris.
We have to be vigilant. They are all over Corporate America.
Google is a company. A publicly traded company.-yahoo
When has a position in a publicly-traded company, or of public trust in government or the media, ever inhibited zionists from pursuing their sectarian interests?
Yes! You go boy!
Christopher Brown, cofounder of nothing, is a white asshole. His "milieu" includes hardline asshole elements all over the world.
Great job of spotting that white asshole and his milieu. Nothing like the free play of ideas over gathered facts concerning the best interests of all.
Just for the record:
Madness this way lies – David Goldberg – Guardian
link to commentisfree.guardian.co.uk
(…) It is time to remind my fellow Jews that in our knee-jerk defence of Israel and enthusiasm to accuse anyone who dares criticise the state of being anti-semitic, we are in danger of going mad. The latest, barely credible example comes from Minnesota, where the Catholic University of St Thomas has rescinded an invitation to the Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu, after pressure from the Zionist Organisation of America accusing him of anti-semitism. The university's vice-president explained: "We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy … he's compared the state of Israel to Hitler and … making moral equivalences like that are hurtful to the Jewish community."(…) But the worst crime a critic of Israel can commit is to suggest that there is an Israel lobby in the US. Of course there is, as there is a gun lobby, an Irish lobby, pro and anti-abortion lobbies, and hundreds of others. Lobbying is as American as apple pie. It is extraordinary to watch large, powerful and effective Jewish organisations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), lumber into action to have meetings cancelled, invitations withdrawn, and smear campaigns initiated against those who claim there is an Israel lobby, protesting all the while that no such lobby exists, and anyone who says it does is therefore anti-semitic.(…) In the obsession to find anti-semites lurking under every stone, you can no longer differentiate between the important work of supporting Jewish students intimidated on campus by Muslim and far-left groups, resisting the pernicious proposal to boycott Israeli academics – or gratuitously insulting, in the name of Jewry, the brave, decent and morally upright Desmond Tutu.
Great job of spotting that Jew Chris.
We have to be vigilant. They are all over Corporate America.
Posted by: McCarthy | October 09, 2007 at 04:49 AM
There was once a shepherd-boy who kept his flock at a little distance from the village. Once he thought he would play a trick on the villagers and have some fun at their expense. So he ran toward the village crying out, with all his might,–
"Wolf! Wolf! Come and help! The wolves are at my lambs!"
The kind villagers left their work and ran to the field to help him. But when they got there the boy laughed at them for their pains; there was no wolf there.
Still another day the boy tried the same trick, and the villagers came running to help and got laughed at again. Then one day a wolf did break into the fold and began killing the lambs. In great fright, the boy ran for help. "Wolf! Wolf!" he screamed. "There is a wolf in the flock! Help!"
The villagers heard him, but they thought it was another mean trick; no one paid the least attention, or went near him. And the shepherd-boy lost all his sheep.
That is the kind of thing that happens to people who lie: even when they tell the truth no one believes them.
from Stories to Tell to Children by Sara Cone Bryant
(Old goyim folktale somewhat appropriate for those denouncing imaginary witch-hunts.)
I read his comments as sarcasm.
Do you know what that is?
"I read his comments as sarcasm."
Dude, if you cannot spot the kind of sarcasm being used, just trust the Sarmatian, he knows best.
Just as an observation, I have seen pro-Zionist commenters completely dismiss sources that were Arabic/Muslim simply by making note of their religion or ethnicity. It would not matter if they were a guest or commenter on a mainstream media program; the fact of their cultural background was enough to (in their mind) totally discredit anything they had to say.
Yet if any sort of tally of Jewish representation is made in different media outlets, all hell breaks loose. This is not even to say that their viewpoints are ignored because they are of a Jewish background, but only making note of the percentage of representation in the media compared to the general population demographics.
Certainly room can be made for Jewish voices that do not neatly fit into the official Zionist narrative. Additionally, Arab/Muslim voices also deserve a platform for putting forth their side of any discussion of Middle East issues.
"Just as it is not likely to invite Richard Jensen to speak there out of concern of upsetting it's African-American employees, Google probably got a clue and decided that it isn't a good idea to have W&M come speak there and give them all that free publicity."
African Americans offended by racists are not party to a Zionist fascist enterprise, so your comparison (as usual) is misleading and designed to cloud the issue.
On the other hand, Jews who are offended by what Walt and Mearsheimer have to say are likely party to the Judeofascist agenda or useful idiots of Judeofascism, and so any offense taken is well-deserved.
Your tactic of obfuscation is common to Judeofascism: hide behind a historically persecuted ethnic group in order to portray the Judeofascists as vulnerable victims as opposed to aggressors.
Judeofascists most typically hide behind Jews and claim attacks on Judeofascism are examples of "anti-Semitism." But from time to time, they also hide behind African Americans and claim that censorship of criticism of Judeofascism is comparable to blacks defending themselves against racists.
How laughable. Its almost akin to Nazis or Communists identifying opposition to their policies as examples of anti-Russian or anti-German bigotry.
This whole Judeofascist pose as vulnerable David's attempting to fight off aggressive Goliath's has grown threadbare, and ever more people can see right through it. Hitler saw himself as a victim too, yet even he gave up the victim card as he was smashing his way through Europe; the Zionists and neocons smashing their way through Palestine and Iraq should show half so much realism.
You have to wonder what the Chinese make of all this. I mean they really have trouble telling a Jew from a Norwegian, all Caucasians have big noses as far as the Chinese are concerned. Just so many round eyed, foreign devils. And as for "chosen" people, the Han Chinese are the most ethno-centered people in the world. China (The Middle Kingdom) is literally the center of the Universe. Think how Chinese hearts would warm to the phrase "Judeo-Christian values".
And go crying to the Chinese about the Holocaust. Mao Tse Tung is estimated to have killed 35,000,000 Chinese and they still have his picture on the wall. Try dividing 6,000,000 into 35,000,000 and you'll get an idea of the horselaughs or blank stares you could raise in China with the Shoa.
I'm just bringing this up, because due to all the Hedge funds and their creative accounting, there is a huge liquidity crisis. And it turns out that the Chinese are holding ENORMOUS amounts of our money in the form of cold cash and they are setting up "sovereign funds" (government controlled investment funds) to buy up everything in sight. With liquidity so tight, it will be hard (impossible) to say no. In short the Chinese may own your house by next year.
And sorry, the Chinese don't need any clever Jewish people to help them handle their money. The Chinese are the world's sharpest business men, ask any Filipino, Malay or Indonesian. That means that the role of the "court Jew" is not open in the Forbidden City.
So really our conversation (therapy?), which I enjoy tremendously, is just a eurocentric circle jerk as far as the Chinese are concerned.
——————————————————————————
The Bloomberg TV interview with M&W that max mentioned above is a riot. If interviewer Mike Schneider is indicative of the jewish-American man in the street, we've got a real battle on our hands.
link to bloomberg.com
/>
(There's a "media on demand" button at the right of the page.)
BTW, Bloomberg also posted one of the most vicious caricatures of the book so far in the media–
"Deceitful Academics Spin Paranoid Fantasy of Pro-Israel Lobby"
Charles Taylor, Sept. 10, 2007
link to bloomberg.com
David Seaton's point is well taken. Like the Spanish Empire of the seventeenth century, we are on the way to exhausting our financial, military, manufacturing, and natural resources. According to recent articles, the Washington "establishment" (mainly comprised of anti-neocon realists) are moping that, due to the Iraq war, we may have lost our 60 year old foothold in the Persian Gulf, the El Dorado of today's Great Game. The Saudis are beginning to lose faith in us, and when the Saudis don't trust us, none of the minor oil players there will trust us either.
We have big problems in this country that will become apparent very soon, and they may push a resolution of the I-P conflict more quickly than anyone expects, due to growing Chinese financial and manufacturing power.
If there is one thing that one learns by looking at the rise and fall of great powers, it is that, by staying out of or on the margins of costly wars, great powers prosper. However, even winning costly wars can in the long run ruin a great power. Throughout the 30 years war for example, Spain won almost every battle, but by the end, it was an exhausted and collapsed empire. It's maritime empire was soon replaced by the Netherlands, whom 60 years before the Spanish crown was literally pummelling into submission.
In the current conflict, China certainly seems to have played its cards right. It is the real threat facing the American hegemon and yet it remains invisible to 90 percent of Americans and Europeans.
DS, try reading Ralph D. Sawyer if you want to know some of the ways the chinese could make use of clever jews.
"the role of the "court Jew" is not open in the Forbidden City."
The chinese are much too clever to let slip the fact that there are some courts almost entirely composed by jews. Agents in foreign courts have always been key players in the chinese way of warfare.
Dear Anonymous,
You are really whistling past the graveyard if you think you'll ever cut a deal with the Han Chinese like you've cut with the US. Believe me the Chinese are not your father's goyim.
DS
The Jews of Harbin: link to bh.org.il
/>
Look for Mordechai Olmert.
Holy Guacamole. Jews lived in China. No wonder I always see them at my neighborhood dumpling house.
Just read the quote from "McCarthy"
Doesn't take a genius to make the connection that McCarthy is a play on George McCarthy and that the writer is indeed being sarcastic in his or her pointing out that Christopher Brown is on a witch hunt or rather a jew hunt.
The follow up remark "Yes! You go boy." also seems to be sarcastic. He or she is making fun of Brown. Who says that?
MM's response seems to indicate that he indeed missed the author's point.
Or perhaps I'm reading too much into and McCarthy really is a little facist pig.
"Throughout the 30 years war for example, Spain won almost every battle, but by the end, it was an exhausted and collapsed empire. It's maritime empire was soon replaced by the Netherlands, whom 60 years before the Spanish crown was literally pummelling into submission"
There are indeed some useful parallels here.
Holland's war of independence against Spain did partly coincide with the Thirty Years War but had started long before. It lasted, in all, eighty years (1568 – 1648).
There is a famous scene in the prelude to this war. The Dutch-Flemish nobles, in an effort to soften the harsh edicts of the then Spanish king, Philips II, offered at the Brussels court of the Spanish governess , Margrete of Parma, a petition to that end. When the long row of about 200 nobles approached her throne the governess became visibly nervous. At this one of her main advisers, the Cardinal Granvelle, is supposed to have said: "Have no fear, Madam. They are only beggars ("Ils ne sont que des gueux")"
The Dutch form of this word ("geuzen") became a badge of honor for the forces of resistance. "To adopt a 'geuzen'name" is still the Dutch term for this form of morally turning the tables.
I have wondered whether ere long something similar might happen with the term "Anti-Semites".
Michael Neumann has warned against this:
" On the other hand, to inflate the definition by including critics of Israel is, if not exactly incorrect, self-defeating and dangerous. No one can stop you from proclaiming all criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. But that makes anti-Semites out of Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu, not to mention tens of thousands of Jews.
What then prevents someone from concluding that anti-Semitism must be, at least in some cases, justifiable, courageous, highly moral? Is this a message any prudent Jew or anti-racist would want to encourage?"
Incidentally, Philips II was a catholic bigot who was blinded by this form of ideology to the real interests of his empire. Here too there is a parallel.
Whichever McCarthy it was being referenced, Christopher Brown has every right to point out someone is a Zionist and Jewish. Or is that a thought crime too now?
If he had just said that they were Jewish, that would be mostly irrelevant, and possibly anti-Semitic. But since it is Zionism at issue, whether one is a Zionist, and in what way one is connected to Zionism, ought to be allowed into the debate. Of course for some reason, certain people want to shift the debate to everything but Zionism.
I think Philip was wrong to call whichever commentor it was 'anti-Semitic', because he/she mentioned that certain members of CSPAN's board of directors belong or have chaired Zionist organizations. Not that CSPAN was involved in some Zionist conspiracy to cover up the W&M event, but in discussing whether or not that was the case, it is a little limiting to not be able to mention that two board members are Zionist and Jewish.
I think McCarthy meanwhile is a complete asshat trying to invoke anti-Semitism by malicious misinterpretation, smearing as it were the author of a valid comment.
Christopher Brown said "Sergei Brin, cofounder of Google, is a Russian jew. His "milieu" includes hardline Russian elements in Israel. "
MM said: "If he had just said that they were Jewish, that would be mostly irrelevant, and possibly anti-Semitic."
Looks like you're the asshat MM.
Article from Dan Fleshler's blog.
(And no I'm not Dan Fleshler)
Jewish Neocons Are Dead Wrong, Not Disloyal
There are few Americans whose ideas offend me more than Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense who played a major role in planning and promoting the invasion of Iraq. I joined demonstrations to try to stop that invasion and am appalled that the preemptive war fetishists now have their sites set on Iran. But I believe Feith, Cheney aide David Wurmser and other Jewish war planners have gotten a raw deal from those who accuse them of putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s.
The dual loyalty accusation has become conventional wisdom in the anti-Israel neighborhoods of the blogosphere and has been given academic respectability by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt. In their new book, as in their original essay, the two profs report that in 2002, “Ha’aretz columnist Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and [Richard] Perle ‘are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments…and Israeli interests.’” They note that Iraq war chronicler George Packer believed that “`For Feith and Wurmser, the security of Israel was probably the prime mover’” when they planned the war.
Elsewhere, Juan Cole once opined, “Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since Feith could never be trusted to put U.S. interests over those of Ariel Sharon.”
Those are very serious allegations, tantamount to accusing government officials of outright treason. Whoever makes them should have incontrovertible evidence. What the accusers have is circumstantial and flimsy. M&W note Feith’s connections with “hardline” Israeli groups, his op-eds supporting Israeli settlers and the infamous paper, “A Clean Break,” which war-for-Israel theorists claim is their smoking gun.
Feith, Perle and Wurmser are said to have co-authored “A Clean Break” for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1997 [Feith claims Wurmser is the sole author]. It calls for Netanyahu to reject the Oslo process, get tough with Syria by launching surgical strikes in Lebanon, and support the Hashemites of Jordan in their power struggle with Syria by, among other things, helping them remove Saddam Hussein from power.
That grab-bag of Machiavellian fantasies certainly captures the spirit of adventurous preemption that characterized the Iraq war. So what does that prove? Neocons favored the unapologetic use of military force and the dismantling of foreign governments in Nicaragua, Grenada, and the Balkans, not just the Middle East. It’s not surprising that some of them recommended the same approach to Netanyahu. That they eventually recommended it to G.W. Bush does not necessarily reveal anything about their loyalties or motivations. All it reveals is an obnoxious, wrong-headed worldview. If Venezuela had a lot more oil and Hugo Chavez were more provocative or tyrannical, they would want to depose him, too.
Recent, impassioned chatter about dual loyalty and Mearsheimer and Walt’s war-for-Israel theory has drowned out a far more important conversation about this ideology of preemptive militarism and interventionism. It gained powerful adherents right after 9/11, when Rumsfeld and Cheney decided to go after Saddam, in part because they wanted to send the message that the U.S. would not be content with attacking Afghanistan. They wanted terrorists and their paymasters to realize that the U.S. would strike its “enemies” anywhere and anytime it damned well pleased. That had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel; it had everything to do with American machismo.
Still, reasonable people can and do disagree about the extent to which Israel or its American supporters also factored into the Bush administration’s decision to wage war. But it is unreasonable to accuse Feith and his pals of divided loyalties without tangible proof.
Last year, I contacted Feith to get his take on the accusations against him for a magazine article. “I confess to being a conservative,” he said. “I have a conservative view of how to protect and preserve democracies. That affects my views of U.S. interests, British interests, Japan’s interests and Israel’s interests. There are problems inherent in the practice of democratic countries negotiating with anti-democratic entities. The parties to the negotiations differ from each other regarding goals, tactics and constraints. This applies to all democratic countries, including Israel.”
He added, “The only justification for going to war with Saddam was that he was a danger to the United States and our vital interests. The President decided that the risk of Saddam’s making biological or eventually nuclear weapons available to terrorists was unacceptable, especially after 9/11.”
That was a tragically wrong conclusion. Did Feith and his colleagues also believe the war would benefit Israel? Of course. Because of that belief, did some of them have an extra edge of enthusiasm for the war? Probably. But how can anyone who doesn’t reside in Feith’s mind assert with smug certainty that Israel was his first, second, fifth or tenth priority when he helped make the case for war?
One intriguing judge of what was on his mind is Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Colonel who worked at the Pentagon’s Near East and South Asia desk from 2001 to 2003. She has written ferocious criticisms of the Iraq war that mention her discomfort at the “pro-Israel, anti-Arab” attitudes of political appointees in the Defense Department and their connections with the Israeli military. But, in an email interview, she called the dual loyalty charge “simplistic, not fact-based.”
“The…preemptive war push is part of neo-conservatism, but not particular to those neoconservatives, like Doug Feith…who also happen to be Jewish, ” she wrote. “These folks…made their political bones as anti-communists. The so-called Islamists are seen by neoconservatives as the new communism…Neoconservatives wish to see an ‘End of Evil’ in a big, loud, decisive bang. We see a kind of predisposition for violent confrontation that isn’t as much based on loyalty to Israel, but on something much closer to home.”
To be sure, in some American neocons, that predisposition was also shaped in part by connections with hard-line Israelis who had a deep mistrust of Arabs and an abiding faith in military solutions to complex problems. In the 1980s, the dedication to Iron Israel, when combined with fierce anti-Communism and a reflexive contempt for anything advocated by the left, created a noxious mixture of ideas. Right-wing Israelis encouraged certain habits of mind in Americans who eventually joined the Bush Administration, a proclivity for shooting first and worrying about the cameras or the UN later.
Now, some American neocons want to inflict this credo of preemptive violence on Iran before Bush leaves office. It is their credo that makes them dangerous, not misplaced loyalties or a lack of commitment to the U.S.
The smaller powers around China might ultimately hedge their bets.
Recent polls in Australia indicated that, though a large majority of Australians still regard the alliance with the US as the cornerstone of Australian defence, the percentage of those who have a favorable view of China almost equalled that of those who feel so disposed towards the US.
It also seems to be the case that Australia is no.1 on the Chinese overseas investment list and this seems to be largely so because both in government circles as well as among the public at large the economic rise of China is seen as predominantly a good thing.
This view reflects economic realities. China is a good customer for Australia's raw materials (in the first place coal and iron ore).
But China's non-aggressive foreign policy and softly softly diplomatic relations might be a factor here too. We are dealing with a long Chinese tradition here. For centuries the heavenly empire was satisfied with the nominal acknowledgment of its superiority by the surrounding countries which, in the case of the Thai kingdom for instance, took the shape of the offering of a small golden tree by emissaries of the Thai king every three years or so.
As far as Jews in China are concerned: they seem to have shown a higher degree of assimilation than almost anywhere else, and were ultimately indistinguishable from the native population. Israel Shamir has surmised that this is because Jews need a christian environment to keep up a separate identity.
Apparently there is now some interest among Chinese Jews in rediscovering their origins, partly because being recognised as an ethnic minority can have some advantages (fewer restrictions on the number of children, more access to education).
Isn't the recently deceased Israel Epstein the Chinese court Jew?
Also, aren't the Chinese called "the Jews of southeast Asia" because of the complete economic takeover of that whole region by a few that migrated over there. There would be pogroms taking place if it weren't for the mainlanders ready to take their billion man march toward the south.
If they are indeed "the Jews of southeast Asia", then American indeed has to start worrying. That is unless the local heebs starts out-Jewing those other Jew wannabes. Unfortunately these Jews (along with non-Jews) have no national allegiance due to their global search for slave labor corporate views and will in fact become China's court Jew just so that they could enrich themselves with the table scraps.
The attitude to the Chinese in South East Asia differs from country to country.
In Malaysia, of course, there have been violent clashes in the past. Now there is a sort of truce with the "pribumi" dominating politics and the Chinese the economy.
There have been nasty clasheds in Indonesia as well.
But none of this has occurred in either Thailand or the Philippines, though the Chinese have a big stake in the economy there as well.
The Chinese seem by and large to have little interest in direct political power in their host countries.
Wow, poor ToughDove is sure getting beat up over at Huffington Post. Almost makes me want to go and defend him. :)
BTW, on the China issue I would remind you of Rowan Berkeley's point that in modern financial capitalism it's whoever controls the banks who controls the economy. How far along the process of absorption is in China I don't know, but it would be silly to assume it's not going on–
"The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" – but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future."
link to haaretz.com
Dear Yahoo
Walt and Meirsheimer have written a book on a critically important subject for America. It's a subject that virtually no one else is talking about in the main stream media. Furthermore there is a bunch of rich powerful people doing their damnedest to make sure no one else hears what Walt and Mersheimer have to say. Sure Google is a private company. Sure Google has no obligation to let anyone say anything. But as young when you consider what a young bright company they are you would think they'd be standing in line around the block to hear the next big new paradigm straight from the horse's mouth.
Jews have a symbiosis with both Christianity and Islam, as both these religions recognize Judaism as a "beta" version of their own. Outside this ecological niche thing get strange. Japanese and Korean antisemitism is a case in point.
link to en.wikipedia.org
/>
They and the Indians are easily convinced that there is a sinister worldwide conspiracy of some sort. The Indians due to their speculative nature are much given to embroidering these things. The Chinese are more Olympic in their disdain for all non-Chinese, regardless of race, creed, or previous condition of servitude.
The rise of Asia will finally make our conversation (therapy?) meaningless.
China's rise aside, probably the greatest danger for the Jewish people, as for the overseas Chinese and the Indian Brahmans, is the rise of populism or participative democracy of any sort. Elites that are easily seen by the general run of humanity as "different", self-regarding, self-centered, clannish, parasitical and exploitive of the surrounding population, have to be afraid of the free movement of information and an inclusive political environment which they cannot control.
I think that is the reason that there has been such a hysterical reaction to W&M… The idea that they could lose control of the narrative, despite having all the mainstream media and the politicians bought is more than some nerves can stand.
Watched Foxman squirm like an dog taking an enema during PBS interview today. Mesrh was relaxed and smiling. The point I loved the most was (not direct quote, just my memory)-
Foxman: There is no evidence AIPAC was pushing for Iraq war.
Mersh: I am quoting director of AIPAC in New York Sun saying that AIPAC was pushing for that war very hard.
Foxman: Just one quote…
Well, boys, the lesson here is very simple:
You really cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Even if you did manage to do it for a very,
very , very,
very, very, very long time!
Well might Arie Brand bring up the well credentialled Michael Neumann, a voice of intelligence, integrity and sobriety.
'Given the crimes of Zionism, there is another simple syllogism: anti-Zionism is a moral obligation, so, if anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism is a moral obligation.'
And given today's news, that Olmert and his thugs are annexing more of the West Bank at a rate of knots, more of Neumann (2003) is appropriate:
'Today, when Israel could have peace for the taking, it conducts another round of dispossession, slowly, deliberately making Palestine unliveable for Palestinians, and liveable for Jews. Its purpose is not defense or public order but the extinction of a people. True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.
Israel is building a racial state, not a religious one. …
[The Palestinians] are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die, so people with one Jewish grandparent can build subdivisions on the rubble of their homes. This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering superpower but an emerging evil, the deliberate strategy of a state conceived in and dedicated to an increasingly vicious ethnic nationalism.'
Nothing else remains to be said.
Actually I think only Monty Python could film M&W's book and do it any justice. Today's land grab while Olmert and Dr. Rice look for a "partner for peace" would make an excellent scene.
If some of you, avid readers, want to know a bit about China in the eyes of a smart young american expat here's John Pasden's blog:
http://www.sinosplice.com/
Juan Cole reports:
After Kurdish guerrillas killed over a dozen Turkish troops, Turkey's prime minister authorized a military strike against suspected guerrilla strongholds in Iraqi Kurdistan on Friday.
The US State Department immediately asked Turkey to reconsider using force in this way. Turkey's leaders are already annoyed with the US over the looming Congressional resolution condemning Turkey for the Armenian genocide of 1915, and some politicians are suggesting that Incirlik Air Force Base could be closed to the US if the resolution passes. The base is now a major route for getting supplies to the US military in Iraq. The Armenian Lobby is behind the congressional vote and is being opposed by the Turkey Lobby.
Neither we nor Europe can afford to lose Turkey as a strategic ally.
Walt and Mearsheimer's next book?
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=USA
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/4e87290f-89d0-49e5-a1bb-a498e1f5fc03.html
http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=208
http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=187
Hey, how come the US is not saying "Turkey has the right to defend herself, period." No special relationship going on between those two?
EU – Turkey has to accept and take responsibility for it's history with the Armenians, just as Israel must accept and take responsibility for its acts towards the Palestinians. I'm not sure what the Armenians want from the Turks, but the Israelis can start by seriously negotiating with Abbas on a two-state solution with more or less 1967 borders. While the Germans never gave up any land for a Jewish state, (which would have been the most sensible thing) they have done an admirable job of owning and accepting their responsibility for the crimes of their state.
WM – That's likely because Turkey is attacking an ally of the US (The Kurds), whereas Israel was attacking Syria, a non-ally. If Israel were to attack Jordan, a US ally, there would be a similar level of resistance as you see with Turkey.
EU,
Why would W&M touch that topic? They are realists, whom relies on soft power to rule the world, as opposed to the neocon's adopted from Israel's whack the mole with a sledge hammer model. The end result is the same, global empire.
WM: I'll let EU answer for him/herself, but I'm guessing that EU is referring to the influence of the Turkish-American and Armenian-American lobbies on US Foreign Policy in the Caspian.
The point may be tangential, but there is some relevance to the discussion about W&M's book. I haven't read it yet so I don't know to what degree they explore this, but the Israeli Lobby does not exist in a vacum. It is one of many ethnic lobbies seeking to influence US foreign policy. There are "Arab Lobbies" that also seek to influence US foreign policy and have been doling out lots of money over the last 20 years to increase their influence. Clearly the Isreali lobby is the more efficient and proficient of the two lobbies, but some of the criticism of it have to be taken with a grain of salt when explained out of the context of other ethnic lobbying dynamics.
Armenians are quite similar to Jews in many ways – they are both relgious and ethnic, strong diaspora, history of persecution, over representation in elite circles, history of conflict with the more extreme elements of Islam. Had the world's flashpoint been in Nagorno Karabakh or Turkey, they may have been the subject of scholars such as W&M.
Yup. It's the Lobbies and our need to keep Turkey firmly in NATO.
WM – Are you saying that W&M are for a global empire?
Allahstein,
But Israel did attack an US ally, Lebanon, and the same "…has the right to defend itself" came out of everybody's mouth.
Also, Turkey in the imperialistic view, is a strategic ally that could not be lost at any cost (for both soft power and hard power advocates), while Kurds are just an ally of convenience. The Kurds know this and do not want for the umpteenth time be abandoned by what they though was their friend. But because Turkey is a strategic ally that cannot be abandoned, their lobby is not in a frenzied state trying to keep Turkey in a inseparable position from America.
For American empire to cherish, it has to keep all its client states somewhat satisfied, but never completely satisfied. So they will not upset that balance to fully satisfy one of them. That is unless a lobby comes into play that throws that equation out of whack like the Israel lobby.
Armenia, will if required by the empire, be thrown away since their strategic value is so small compared to what could be lost if they get their way. That is unless in 30 years or so their lobby and political influence gets so strong that their single issue stance could cause trouble for congress members.
Also, wasn't the nationalist Chinese lobby supposedly ever so strong, until Nixon one day decided to abandon them and establish relationship with China? Was it so strong because the US was fiercely anti-communist? Or was it perceived to be strong because it just happens to be aligned with what imperialist America wants? If the nationalist Chinese lobby says "Invade China", it was never going to happen.
EU,
Where have you been? America is about global empire, it is just how it is done. The realist world is to have all the countries as client states, no matter who they are, dictator, kings or what, as long as their ruler are compliant to America's demand, if not, you disappear from the face of the earth. You can see that taking place all over the middle east, with American bases scattered throughout monarchical countries. The neo-con way would be not unlike the Israel way, which was the rabid little dog that barked like hell and tore at its opponent if they got too close. But this time, it would not be that little dog, but the giant rotweiler.
If the neocons and the Israel lobby have their power curtailed, the fight will still be long and hard because the empire will still be there encroaching on the rest of the world. The best course would probably be to let the Usrael empire keep on starting wars all over the place until its resources are exhausted and the US turns to a 3rd world country mired in debt. Israel then could rid itself of that has been and turn to a new sugar daddy.
WM – Israel actually attacked Hezbollah after Hezbollah miscalculated and attacked Israel. Many non-Shiite Lebanese were actually hoping Israel would mop the floor with Hezbollah in order to shuffle internal Lebanese politics. While I question the wisdom in reacting as they did to Hezbollah's aggressions, many fair minded people, quite a few who disagree with Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians, felt like Israel was not without justification in responding to Hezbollah, which by the way is not a US ally. The Lebanese may be a potential ally, but the Syrian-Hezbollah clique is clearly not an ally.
If Israel were to roll tanks into Jordan I think you would hear stronger protests from the US government than we are hearing now regarding Turkey invading the Kurds.
Regarding your last comment – I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you writing your own protocols for the jews or is this intended for someone else? I'm genuinely curios, not trying to be insulting.
"quite a few who disagree with Israeli policy vis-a-vis the Palestinians, felt like Israel was not without justification in responding to Hezbollah"
You got any examples of this, stein? Because all the opinions I've been exposed to have said quite that it was inappropriate to bomb the Lebanese people in response to the soldiers' capture.